Date   
Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Margie & Larry Galkowski
 

Another from CRRM
Larry G

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Brian Kopp
 

Great CRM photo. That side of the coaches was off limits to regular tourists like me last month.....

Brian Kopp
904-206-3453
brian@...


On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:32 AM Margie & Larry Galkowski <margielarrygalkowski@...> wrote:
Another from CRRM
Larry G

Re: K-36 and K-37

Jim Spencer
 

Mick, I happen to own both a 1994 PSC K-28 and a couple of the Westside K-28s.  While I agree that the detail on the PSC is much greater (brake shoes, for instance), I think the Westside is little more proportionately correct.  I located a folio sheet on the K-28s (from John Norwood's "Rio Grande Narrow Gauge"). 
The overall boiler diameter is supposed to be 64 3/4".  Measuring both models with a caliper is quite difficult in terms of missing the handrails, etc.  But the Westside appears to be about 69" and the PSC about 67" - both too large - though the PSC wins on that account. 
The more important dimension is the overall height of the boiler.  Extrapolating the folio sheet shows 9.2' off the top of the rails.  Again, both models much are too tall.  The Westside wins on that account by being around 9.9' where the PSC is right at about 10'.
I don't have a Division Point K-28, but my understanding when this model came out was that it was the first K-28 model to get the overall height and boiler diameter correct. (Maybe someone else who has one can confirm that).
Another important thing that hasn't been brought up is the cab corners.  All the newer models mentioned above have the correct rounded corners.  The older PFMs don't and appear to be fabricated out of separate flat pieces and soldered at 90º.

Re: K-36 and K-37

Jim Spencer
 

Though this is an HOn3 site, since it was brought up, here is what I know about these NJ Brass M-67/78 models: 

They have two serious discrepancies:  1) the cylinders are too short, and 2) the tender is too tall and too short. 

On the tender, I wonder whether the builder went out and accidentally measured an M-75 tender that is taller and shorter.  Some were still on the railroad during the late 1970s and used for various MOW purposes.  When Berlyn came out with their versions, they actually offered correct tenders separately in order to correct the NJ Brass problem. .....but then the Berlyns had their own serious problems with an incorrect pilot, grossly oversized main rods, and overly large number boards - all correctable.  Interestingly the M-67/78 4-8-2s were among the most numerous standard gauge D&RGW locomotives, yet they have never been done correctly. 

Again, not narrow gauge.

Re: Jacks Cabin / Villa Grove water tank

Margie & Larry Galkowski
 

Brian
That was shot back on 3/2013 Train was not running. Had run of the lot. Seen it all.
Larry G

Re: K-36 and K-37

Earl Knoob
 

Remember, when looking at a folio and comparing it to a model,  the boiler diameter in the folio is the diameter of the pressure vessel.  To that is added the boiler lagging (insulation) and the jacket.  That easily adds 3-4+" to the diameter of the boiler.


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of Jim Spencer <trainmanjs@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 11:24 AM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: Re: [HOn3] K-36 and K-37
 
Mick, I happen to own both a 1994 PSC K-28 and a couple of the Westside K-28s.  While I agree that the detail on the PSC is much greater (brake shoes, for instance), I think the Westside is little more proportionately correct.  I located a folio sheet on the K-28s (from John Norwood's "Rio Grande Narrow Gauge"). 
The overall boiler diameter is supposed to be 64 3/4".  Measuring both models with a caliper is quite difficult in terms of missing the handrails, etc.  But the Westside appears to be about 69" and the PSC about 67" - both too large - though the PSC wins on that account. 
The more important dimension is the overall height of the boiler.  Extrapolating the folio sheet shows 9.2' off the top of the rails.  Again, both models much are too tall.  The Westside wins on that account by being around 9.9' where the PSC is right at about 10'.
I don't have a Division Point K-28, but my understanding when this model came out was that it was the first K-28 model to get the overall height and boiler diameter correct. (Maybe someone else who has one can confirm that).
Another important thing that hasn't been brought up is the cab corners.  All the newer models mentioned above have the correct rounded corners.  The older PFMs don't and appear to be fabricated out of separate flat pieces and soldered at 90º.

Re: K-36 and K-37

Jim Spencer
 

I’ll go back and check. But my recollection of the folio sheet is it showed the boiler plus the lagging.

K-28, was K-36 and K-37

John Stutz
 

Jim & Earl

Regarding folio and similar measurements:  The D&RGW locomotive diagrams issued in the 1950's, and formerly available from the Maxwell Collection, do indeed show boiler barrel "OD"s. This is a contrast with the industry's standard, which is to give the inside diameter of the front sheet.  So Earl's additional 3-4+  for lagging should be added to a model boiler.   And misinterpretation of such dimensions is doubtless why some models come up so short on visual boiler diameter.

For the K-28s we have much more much more specific information, from a seven page ALCo publicity piece in the Railway Review of January 24, 1925, V 76, No 4, pp 179-185.   This was also formerly available from the Maxwell Collection, but I believe it is now online, possibly as the 'Railway & Engineering Review".   The table of dimensions and quite detailed drawing both give the following:

      Diam, smoke box                      65 3/4"

      Diam, first course, outside      63 1/2"

      Dim, second course, outside  66 1/16"

However such sources rarely if ever give any details about the lagging, so I cannot improve on Earl's dimensions.

This ALCo publicity piece is an unusually detailed exposition of a locomotive's design goals, the means by which they were achieved,  and the operating results.  It is essentially a demonstration of the advantages to be expected from modern 'super powered' steam, although the ALCo publicist never even hints of that phrase.  The K-28 was a  thoroughly modernized K-27, incorporating all applicable elements of the intervening 20 years'  improvements in steam locomotive design.  In the K-28, the D&RGW obtained an engine that could take a K-27's load wherever a K-27 could go, while making remarkable savings in fuel, water and time over the road.  Regarding NG operations in 1924, the ALCo publicist reports that "For the first six months of this year ton miles per locomotive mile have increased 13 per cent; freight train speed has increased 22 per cent and gross tone miles per train hour have increased 35 percent."   Much of the improvements was doubtless due to the increased number of heavy NG freight engines, from 15 to 25, but it was clearly the K-28s' performance in freight service that justified upgrading the principal NG lines with rail and bridges heavy enough to allow introduction of the K-36 and K-37 classes.

John Stutz

Re: K-28, was K-36 and K-37

Earl Knoob
 

Another fun little item is the boiler diameter shown is the first course, which is generally the smallest diameter of the entire boiler.  Even straight top boilers get bigger as the go to the rear.  The smokebox is usually bigger than the first course as it telescopes over the first course.  The second course telescopes over the first, and on down the boiler.  So, even a straight top boiler is larger in the rear that at the front.  Each course is larger by twice the thickness of the barrel steel, which is at least 1/2" or 5/8" thick.  Some (like 463) are 3/4".  So, the fully lagged and jacketed boiler could be 4 or 5 inches larger at the firebox end of the boiler than is shown in a folio drawing.


From: HOn3@groups.io <HOn3@groups.io> on behalf of John Stutz <john.stutz@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 12:04 PM
To: HOn3@groups.io
Subject: [HOn3] K-28, was K-36 and K-37
 
Jim & Earl

Regarding folio and similar measurements:  The D&RGW locomotive diagrams
issued in the 1950's, and formerly available from the Maxwell
Collection, do indeed show boiler barrel "OD"s. This is a contrast with
the industry's standard, which is to give the inside diameter of the
front sheet.  So Earl's additional 3-4+  for lagging should be added to
a model boiler.   And misinterpretation of such dimensions is doubtless
why some models come up so short on visual boiler diameter.

For the K-28s we have much more much more specific information, from a
seven page ALCo publicity piece in the Railway Review of January 24,
1925, V 76, No 4, pp 179-185.   This was also formerly available from
the Maxwell Collection, but I believe it is now online, possibly as the
'Railway & Engineering Review".   The table of dimensions and quite
detailed drawing both give the following:

       Diam, smoke box                      65 3/4"

       Diam, first course, outside      63 1/2"

       Dim, second course, outside  66 1/16"

However such sources rarely if ever give any details about the lagging,
so I cannot improve on Earl's dimensions.

This ALCo publicity piece is an unusually detailed exposition of a
locomotive's design goals, the means by which they were achieved,  and
the operating results.  It is essentially a demonstration of the
advantages to be expected from modern 'super powered' steam, although
the ALCo publicist never even hints of that phrase.  The K-28 was a 
thoroughly modernized K-27, incorporating all applicable elements of the
intervening 20 years'  improvements in steam locomotive design.  In the
K-28, the D&RGW obtained an engine that could take a K-27's load
wherever a K-27 could go, while making remarkable savings in fuel, water
and time over the road.  Regarding NG operations in 1924, the ALCo
publicist reports that "For the first six months of this year ton miles
per locomotive mile have increased 13 per cent; freight train speed has
increased 22 per cent and gross tone miles per train hour have increased
35 percent."   Much of the improvements was doubtless due to the
increased number of heavy NG freight engines, from 15 to 25, but it was
clearly the K-28s' performance in freight service that justified
upgrading the principal NG lines with rail and bridges heavy enough to
allow introduction of the K-36 and K-37 classes.

John Stutz




Tie Spacing

David Hunt
 

I looked through the group archive but didn't see a discussion of this topic.

 

I'm getting ready to start hand laying the track for the HOn3 portion of my layout.  When looking at pictures of the D&RGW between Antonito and Durango in the late 40's and early 50's it looks like the ties aren't spaced much farther apart than the width of a 5"x7" tie.  Many ties seem to be placed even closer than 7" apart.  This is quite a bit closer together than the ties on the Micro Engineering flex track that I used on my last layout.

 

This surprised me a bit.  What are the experts here in this group using for the spacing between their ties?

 

Thanks.

 

Dave Hunt


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: Tie Spacing

Bill Lugg
 

Not sure of the right answer from a prototype prospective, but if I
might offer a general suggestion...

Take a look at https://www.handlaidtrack.com/tieracks-hon3.  These
things aren't that expensive and they're great for laying out a strip of
ties that can then be glued in place.  You can select the jig with the
appropriate amount of misalignment you desire and I found the branchline
jigs have ties spaced further apart than the mainline jigs.

They will speed up the process significantly.

HTH
Bill Lugg

On 5/29/19 7:56 PM, David Hunt wrote:

I looked through the group archive but didn't see a discussion of this
topic.

I'm getting ready to start hand laying the track for the HOn3 portion
of my layout.  When looking at pictures of the D&RGW between Antonito
and Durango in the late 40's and early 50's it looks like the ties
aren't spaced much farther apart than the width of a 5"x7" tie.  Many
ties seem to be placed even closer than 7" apart.  This is quite a bit
closer together than the ties on the Micro Engineering flex track that
I used on my last layout.

This surprised me a bit.  What are the experts here in this group
using for the spacing between their ties?

Thanks.

Dave Hunt


<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>


<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: Tie Spacing

Dale Buxton
 

Interesting question. I've just always used a commercial tie spacing jig.

What you are seeing in the photos of the Durango Line, are the affects of decades of deferred maintenance and time saving. When several rotted ties were often located together. Rather than dig them all out and replace them, a replacement tie was put in between 2 bad ties. This cut down on time spent at the task and the amount of ties needed to make the repair. 

On a whim, I just looked at the NMRA web site and oddly I found nothing on tie spacing. That's very strange. They have recommended practices for just about everything else under the sun for model railroads. So I typed in " FRA tie spacing" and  that took me the "Railway Tie Association". There I found that they suggest 19.5 inches center to center for tie spacing. Searching deep into the FRA web pages gave me a spacing of 19 inches between tie centers. So there you go. A modern standard for tie spacing.

I agree that you should go to "Fast Tracks" web site and buy some tie templates. I just checked there and they say 22 inches between centers for mainline track and 24 inches for branch line for 3 foot gauge.

I am willing to bet the the San Juan Extension (Durango Line) was built with a tie spacing closer to 24" (or grater) to save on tie cost and construction time. Safety was the very last thing thought of in those days. Just Get-er-done and make money for the stock holders. Another one of many reasons why railroads had such appalling safety records a century and a half ago. And why there are so many laws governing safety on railroads today. 

Dale Buxton

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:56 PM David Hunt <david.hunt@...> wrote:

I looked through the group archive but didn't see a discussion of this topic.

 

I'm getting ready to start hand laying the track for the HOn3 portion of my layout.  When looking at pictures of the D&RGW between Antonito and Durango in the late 40's and early 50's it looks like the ties aren't spaced much farther apart than the width of a 5"x7" tie.  Many ties seem to be placed even closer than 7" apart.  This is quite a bit closer together than the ties on the Micro Engineering flex track that I used on my last layout.

 

This surprised me a bit.  What are the experts here in this group using for the spacing between their ties?

 

Thanks.

 

Dave Hunt


Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: K-28, was K-36 and K-37

Michael Lomert <michael.lumert@...>
 

Can anyone find that Railway Review article?  Online would be great, but I’m more than willing to pay for a copy...

Re: Tie Spacing

David Keith
 


Kevin Strong made a nice entry here:  http://ngdiscussion.net/phorum/read.php?1,148340,148862#msg-148862
It references a Nov/Dec 1989 NG&SLG

Stan Ames references the same article and provides similar but different information:  https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.railroad/Sy-e_FzMksk

According to Wikipedia, the tie spacing is the center to center distance between ties.

Re: Tie Spacing

kevin b
 

hello all.

back in the day, when I hand laid all my track, I spaced the ties 1 tie apart.
in other words, put down 3 ties side by side, remove the center tie.
boom!
done.
ties spaced.
to me, that always looked "right"
dunno if that's worth anything to anybody or not, but, that's how I did it.

have a happy day
Kevin.


Re: Tie Spacing

rick@...
 

Here is a text file I had buried on my hard drive. I have lost the author or when it was that I got it.

====
30' rail: 16 ties, 22.5" center to center
33' rail: 18 ties, 22" center to center
39' rail: 22 ties, c. 21.25" center to center

====
Last summer, at the CRRM, I looked at some the valuation documentation for the D&RG west of Antonito. In 1918 the ties were 7" x 8" x 6.5'. Believe it or not, as part of the valuation process, they counted and listed how many of each type of wood the ties were. They were listed as being either Pine or Spruce.

====
The C&TS bought Class 1 & 2 ties (Main Line) from the Union Pacific. They are bigger than the NG ties that were there, mostly 6" & 7" width. The UP ties could be up to 8.5" ties. There is no change in spacing as that would take skidding the track and total re-placement.
Class 3 are for branch line, Class 4 & 5 are for yard and sidings. The flaws in the ties create their Class and they are priced accordingly.

====
EBT notice to tie shippers; May 20, 1943 indicates they purchased 7 ft ties, tolerance between 7ft 1 in. and 6 ft. 11 in.

They also purchased 6 ft ties, tolerance, no shorter than 6 ft.

Ties must be grade 1 or 2. It is my understanding that the ties were not treated. No other deminsions are shown for the ties.

====
Tie spacing has changed over the years. According to an 1876 engineering guide from the Hartford Providence and Fishkill (std ga) tie spacing was 30" (roughly 2000 per mile), and at that only 1 tie in 4 was spiked on straightaways, 1 in 3 on broad curves, and 1 in 2 on sharp curves. ties were untreated.

====

Rick

Re: Tie Spacing

rick@...
 

Follow up: text file was from January 2010.

Rick

Re: Tie Spacing

rick@...
 

One more item unearthed. I think it is from the Gazette article.

Rick

Re: Tie Spacing

John Stutz
 

Hiking the White Pass some years ago, I found the ties at about 2' CtoC.

John Stutz

Re: K-28, was K-36 and K-37

John Stutz
 

Michael

The Hathi Trust at  https://www.hathitrust.org/digital_library is the place to search for such, but I do not find anything for the Railway Review later than 1923.  Probably due to American copyright law.  I will scan my hardcopy and post it shortly.

John Stutz


On 5/30/2019 5:18 AM, Michael Lomert wrote:
Can anyone find that Railway Review article?  Online would be great, but I’m more than willing to pay for a copy...